They mostly come during the full moon. . .mostly

TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (WTHI) - The Virginia Tech shooting on Thursday brings up an interesting topic back in the Hoosier State. An Indiana lawmaker wants to allow guns on college campuses.

Sounds like a plan. I like it. Then along comes some yayhoo to poo-poo the idea without really thinking about what they're saying:

"Police of all types are trained for situations like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech. Students with gun permits are usually not."

Trained for what situation? The one yesterday? I don't think anyone has said that carrying a weapon for personal defense guarantees your survival, as can be seen with the slaying of the officer. Police officers are trained in policing, not getting ambushed. As for the 2007 VA Tech massacre, what is he suggesting? That police officers are trained to be shot in a classroom? Sure, cops have been trained to pool their resources together and hunt down an active shooter, but nobody is saying that students need a personal arm for that because finding and stopping a crazed gunman is not their job. It's has nothing to do with it. The concept of a student keeping a firearm for an active shooter scenario is that they won't be standing there with their dick in their hand if a shooter busts into the room shooting.

We see this time after time after time from ignorant cops, lawmakers and the media: blurring the lines between what a SWAT team uses firearms for -- offensive tactics -- and what everyone else (the general public) uses them for -- defensive tactics. The difference between the two is that cops on a SWAT team are generally not attacked without warning while peacefully receiving instruction in a classroom. If a student or teacher need their weapon, they won't need to go looking for the bad guy; the bad guy will be trying to systematically murder people several feet away. They won't be hard to spot.

"[For police] To come and find several people with guns drawn and to try and decide in a split second whether or not that person is acting appropriately or not would be almost impossible for a responding officer," Bill Mercier of the ISU Police Department said.

If an armed student gets in a shootout with a gunman, how long does Officer Mercier expect this to go on for before his merry men with guns get there? It's known to take a long time for the cops to respond, which is why law enforcement went from "wait for the SWAT team" like at Columbine, to "four man fire team of responding officers" like before the VA Tech massacre, to "first officer on scene goes after the shooter" -- time. The longer it takes for guys with guns to put holes in the psycho, the more lives the psycho will take. That highly trained law enforcement element that is equipped to handle an armed, murderous gunman arrive well after the shooter has had his way with his victims, which doesn't do much good for the poor folks trapped in the room with him. That goes for non-active shooter scenarios like forcible rape, aggrevated assault, robbery, savage mob beatings, and the like, too.

Take note that in yesterday's shooting at VA Tech, 15 minutes went by before anyone even called in that the cop had been shot in broad daylight in a parking lot. And whoopidee-doo that the responding law enforcement team had automatic weapons, body armor, radios, and wanted to find the bad guy and kick his ass; the gunman had finished the job and killed himself. The cavalry aren't there when the shooting starts -- the students are, hiding under a desk hoping to not get shot in the back of the head, because that's their only option. Of all the mass shootings in recent history that I recall, the Fort Hood shooting is the only one I know of where responding officers were there in time to exchange fire with the workplace violence guy crazed muslim extremist, and that attack was ironically in a place full of Soldiers who are trained to go after scumbags with firearms but were unarmed by shitty base policy.

Then we have the qualified experts weigh in:

Student Government President Nick Utterback says this isn't a law the SGA hopes to pass. "Just allowing more students to carry guns on campus with a permit that is easily obtained is just a dangerous situation for everyone," Utterback said.

That's right, nothing. If you make the personal choice to not have the means to prevent your untimely death via spree shooter, then good on you. You're right. Seriously. There's no wrong answer there, because it's your life; and to be quite honest there's a super small chance you will ever need that weapon and it's a huge pain in the ass to carry it. It's also a major responsibility, which is why very few students would likely chose to carry a firearm anyways, which is why this whole fiasco of allowing them amounts to nothing. Conversely, the few students that find it's worth the inconvenience to carry a weapon to protect their gift of life, and embrace the responsibility that comes with it. . . .well, those are the very people you would want sitting next to you when Jijadi Jim Jr. decides he's had enough of the infidel's poisonous teaching and starts shooting up the joint, and to be brutally honest, you don't possess the right to tell them that they can't.

What this boils down to is cops like officer Mercier can only see things from their own point of view, and haven't taken the time to consider what it's like for those who's job is not law enforcement. Or playing music:

"I can't stand up and dictate to the world: 'it's over -- no more guns'.

Yeah, because that would turn the world back to the peace and love that it used to be:

Look at all those joyfull people who blessedly haven't been exposed to firearms. What a wonderful time it was for all.

Gesturing to the statue, he said: "It was a bad day. But it was a bad day because someone took one of these and shot John."

Yes, Ringo, before those evil guns were created the world was a swell place because mankind hadn't figured yet how to hand out bad days.

For Ringo so loved the world that he gave his only begotten opinion. I'm not impressed.